29 F. 706 -

29 F1d 706

class="ad-unit">

Advertisement

Case Text

10&'

FEDERAL REPORTER.

Kressel'sl"tobe delivered of th9life-saving station, no one had aright to break the envel{)pe but the person to whom, not to whose
care, ther:Were directed, ot' some one acting under his authority to do The W'(')tdfl'onthe letters/tIn 'Ctl,:re of F. Kressel," indicate that they were to be delivered through Kressel. They do not mean that he is the person to whom the letters were directed. The keeper of the life-saving station was the person to whom the letters were directed; and if the defendant opened them delivered to him, and so opened them without authority, you can find him guilty under this section, (U. S. v. Rep. 225,) if ris purpose was to obstruct the correspondence, or pry out the bushless or secrets of the keeper.

The P.'!rposeofRev. St.'[f.. B.. § 5467, is to. prevent and punish any interfer· ence wlth the contents of a letter in the custody of the mail; and a pOstmaster who takes money out of a registered letter, and borrows it, with the hope and expectati?:n pf ret\1rning)t, and dOllS return it. is the terms of the "", statute'.J." . ' ' , " :'

SmoNTON,:{., (chargingjury.) One Qf'the of the indictment charges tbedeferidant with violating the provisions ofsection 5467 of the Revised S,tatlltes; ;by secreting and a rllwsrered letterintrusted t6him which letterc9n.tidneEl $12 in United States and that he' did Btealor take the"eohtents thereof. The defendant has been,exanrined before you, that the letter was delivered to him to be registered;' containing this sum of money, and that he gave a. receipt for it; that he did not it for want of a post-office receipt for a registered package; that he put it in his pocket, and forgot it; that some afterwards, when called upon by the person who handed him the letter,heproduced it without its contents, but at once paid the value thereof to her'.: He denies that he,stole, or to steal, this money. There is a'conflict in' the the question whethel' the letter was sealed or not'wheri handlJd't6 him for registmtion. . . The counsel'for the defendant has requested the court to charge the jury that· they' ciiI1n'ot convict the defendant unless they conclude from
'lSee JoneS':.

S., 21

447.

.GRIFFITH V. SEGAR.

707

the 'testimony that he' :tookuthe money with ,felonious intent; that 'the originalJakmg must haiveibeen with1'mtent to'steal. 'Where words are ·nsea ina statute,ameaning'nJ.'IlStbe given to 'each word, if possible. Words are not to be takenas;synonymous, unlessthey are so ,necessarily. Congress" in using these ,two words j .,...11 "tak.e j "--with. ,the; disjunctive, must have intended them to bear different meanings, else both would not have been used. If you find from the evidence that the defendant took the <;ontents of this letter animo furandi. with intent to steal them, he comes within the prohibition of this section; if you find that he took the contents, borrowing them, hoping and expecting to return them, making temporary use of them, he also comes within the prohiof the statute, I!lay be guilty. ,.1he purpose of the seetion IS to prevent andpuIllsh any Interference WIth the contents of a letter in the custpdy of tlle ID¥.

A bill in equity for infringement. founded upon five separate pMents, containing in the aggregate sixteen claims, which does not contain an that the inventions are 'capable of conjoint ulle. or that the structure manufactured and sold by deferidants combines all of the patented features. is bad . for multifariousness. ' '

In Equity_On Demurrer to bill. Edwin H. Risley, for ThommJ Ric1widaoo,for defendants. This is an equity action for infringement, founded upon five separate patents, containing in the aggregate sixteen claims, granted to the complainant for improvements in folding beds and The defendants demur on the ground that the bill is multifarious, no reason appearing for .uniting five distinct causes of action in one suit. There is, no allegation in the bill that the inventions are capable of conjoint use, or that the structure manufactured and sold by the defendants combiriesallof the patented features. The averments in that behalf would be sustained by proof that the defendants mallUfactured nnd sold five separate beds, each of which infringed one of the patents in question, but no one of which inmngedall of them, or more than one of them. The autb:6rities are quite uniform· in declaring such. a bill insuffiCient. Hayea v. Dayton, 8 Fed. Rep. 702; NeUis v. McLanahan, 6 Fish. 286; Nourse v. Allen, 4 Blatchf. 376; Horman Patent ManuJ'g Co. v·. BrOQklyn OUy R. Co., 15 Blatchf. 444; Barn('f}J v. Peck, 16 Fed. Rep. 413; Lilliendahl v. Det'uriJkr, 18 Fed. Rep. 176; Walk. Pat.§ 417.